트럼프 행정부, 이란 전쟁 추가 예산 $876억 요청
Trump administration requests approval of $87.6 billion for Iran war - World Socialist Web Site
지정학적 긴장감이 높아질 수 있으나, 축소된 예산 요청은 신중한 접근을 시사합니다.
핵심 요약
트럼프 행정부는 이란 전쟁 추가 예산으로 $876억을 요청했으며, 그 중 $671억이 국방부 예산으로 할당되었습니다.
핵심요약
- 트럼프 행정부는 이란 전쟁 추가 예산으로 $876억을 요청했습니다.
- 국방부 예산은 $671억으로, 탄약($210억), 사이버 보안($51억), 공중 이동 표적 지표($40억) 등에 할당되었습니다.
- 초기 논의된 $2000억에서 크게 축소된 것으로, 의회 승인을 얻기 위한 전략으로 보입니다.
- 농업 지원($111억) 등 다른 프로그램도 포함되어 있습니다.
- 이 요청은 earlier year에 논의된 far larger war funding package보다 크게 축소되었습니다.
도입
이번 예산 요청은 이란 전쟁에 대한 미국 정부의 전략적 전환을 반영합니다. 투자자에게는 국방 산업 관련 주식의 가격 변동성과 군사 예산의 장기적 영향을 고려해야 하는 중요한 신호입니다. 특히, 예산의 구성과 할당 방식을 분석하면 향후 국방 계약의 방향성을 예측할 수 있습니다.
본문 1: 국방 예산의 전략적 재편
$671억의 국방부 예산은 탄약($210억), 사이버 보안($51억), 공중 이동 표적 지표($40억) 등에 집중되어 있습니다. 이는 이란과의 군사적 대립에서 기술적 우위를 확보하려는 의도를 보여줍니다. 특히, 사이버 보안과 공중 이동 표적 지표에 대한 투자 증가는 현대 전쟁의 특성을 반영한 것으로, 국방 산업의 기술 혁신 방향을 예측할 수 있는 중요한 지표입니다. 투자자는 이러한 기술 분야의 성장 가능성을 고려해야 합니다.
본문 2: 정치적 승인 전략의 변화
초기 $2000억의 예산 요청에서 $876억으로 축소된 것은 의회에서의 승인을 얻기 위한 전략적 조치입니다. 이는 행정부의 예산 요청 방식이 정치적 현실을 고려하게 되었다는 것을 의미합니다. 이는 국방 산업 관련 주식의 단기적 변동성을 높일 수 있는 요인입니다. 또한, 농업 지원($111억) 등 다른 프로그램의 포함은 의회에서의 지지를 확보하기 위한 노력으로 볼 수 있습니다. 투자자는 정치적 요인이 시장에도 미칠 수 있는 영향을 고려해야 합니다.
본문 3: 장기적 경제적 영향
이번 예산 요청은 이란 전쟁의 장기화 가능성을 시사합니다. 이는 국방 산업의 지속적인 성장을 기대할 수 있지만, 동시에 경제적 부담이 증가할 수 있는 리스크도 있습니다. 특히, 군사 예산의 증가는 다른 분야의 예산 절감으로 이어질 수 있어, 경제의 균형에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 투자자는 이러한 장기적 영향을 고려하여 포트폴리오를 조정해야 합니다.
결론
트럼프 행정부의 이란 전쟁 추가 예산 요청은 국방 산업의 전략적 전환과 정치적 현실을 반영한 중요한 신호입니다. 투자자는 국방 산업의 기술 혁신 방향성과 정치적 요인의 영향을 고려해야 합니다. 향후 군사 예산의 변동성과 국방 계약의 방향성을 주의 깊게 관찰할 필요가 있습니다.
Original Article
Trump administration requests approval of $87.6 billion for Iran war - World Socialist Web Site
On Wednesday, the Trump administration requested Congress approve $87.6 billion in extra funding for the war with Iran as well as several other unrelated programs.
The request, submitted in a letter to Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson by White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, is a reduced version of the far larger war funding package that had been discussed earlier this year.
The bulk of the package is $67.15 billion for the Defense Department while the White House has padded the request with farm aid, Ebola response money, pension relief, and other items to make it more attractive on Capitol Hill.
Vought wrote that, “most of this request will address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury,” and urged Congress to act “as soon as possible.” The defense portion includes $1.7 billion for readiness, $17.3 billion for operational costs, $0.8 billion for National Guard support, $1.5 billion for fuel, $1.2 billion for administration priorities, $21 billion for munitions, $5.1 billion for cybersecurity and autonomy, $2.4 billion for drones, $4 billion for airborne moving target indication and space data network backbone, and $12.1 billion for other classified programs.
The other items are $11.1 billion for US farmers, plus smaller amounts for Ebola response, humanitarian aid, diplomatic security, nuclear nonproliferation, Penn Station, Washington infrastructure and Delphi pensions.
The reduction from the earlier figure of $200 billion that had been discussed by President Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth shows how much the administration has had to climb down from its ambitions in the disastrous war campaign.
In mid-March the Pentagon had sought roughly $200 billion in additional funding for the Iran war when it ran into opposition in Congress. The current request is less than half that size, which suggests the White House is trying a reset and presenting a package that is more likely to be approved.
Reuters reported that the new supplemental was still expected to generate conflicts because lawmakers have attacked the White House for blundering in the war with Iran and some demanding that Trump “finish the job.” In the Senate, Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee have criticized the administration for demanding that taxpayers finance an open-ended war without a clear strategy or legal basis.
However, as has been clear all along, these positions do not represent opposition from Democrats to the military assault on Iran, but objections to the refusal of the Trump White House to include Congress in the planning and decision to go to war.
In fact, much of the talk about “conflicts” between Congress and Trump over the military funding is for public consumption, given the massive opposition that exists within the US to the war. The way the budget request has been structured indicates that the new components have been discussed and a deal will be worked out—perhaps with some additional modifications—so Trump will likely once again get what he wants.
In the House, for example, Republicans can assemble a majority and a handful of Democrats—possibly from farm-heavy or other districts that will benefit from the ancillary items in the proposal—may decide not to oppose the package outright.
In the Senate, the numbers are much worse for the White House because the chamber has already shown resistance to the war, and because a majority would likely require some Democratic support as well as nearly total Republican unity.
The political crisis of the Trump administration was also highlighted on Wednesday when the President abruptly cancelled the signing ceremony for a bipartisan housing bill which he said would not move forward until the Senate passed the SAVE America Act, the Republican sponsored “voter-ID and citizenship-verification” law that is an anti-voting rights measure that will disenfranchise tens of millions of eligible voters.
Also on Wednesday, the Senate passed the Iran war powers resolution by 50-48, with four Republicans joining nearly all Democrats to back it, making it the first time both chambers had approved a measure directing a president to withdraw forces from hostilities under the 1973 War Powers Act. The resolution had already cleared the House earlier this month by 215-208, also with four Republicans voting yes.
The resolution is nonbinding and does not force the White House to stop the war or require the president’s signature. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has argued that the law is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Reuters noted that the measure would likely end up in court over whether Congress can enforce it.
The war against Iran, which was launched by the US and Israel on February 28, has been a debacle for Trump. It has not produced any of the results claimed by the White House or Pentagon at the outset: Iran’s government has not collapsed, the Strait of Hormuz remains under Tehran’s control and the Iranian nuclear program is intact.
The ceasefire and peace negotiations have been a disaster since Trump announced them and signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on June 17. Meanwhile, the Israeli military occupation of Lebanon continues.
According to Al Jazeera, two people were killed on Wednesday and two more on Thursday, for a total of four killed over those two days. Wednesday’s strike hit a vehicle near Kfar Reman in southern Lebanon, and on Thursday, Hezbollah accused Israel of killing two people in Lebanon’s south while they were trying to return home.